Digest With Num 3 IssueTopic

Topic: Art 11: Defense of Property
Title: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
MAMERTO NARVAEZ, defendant-appellant.
GR No. | Date: G.R. Nos. L-33466-67 | April 20, 1983
Facts:
Mamerto Narvaez has been convicted of crime of MURDER qualified by treachery with
the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation offset by the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender. This crime committed was against David Fleischer, the son of the Fleischer
and Co., Inc. and the secretary-treasurer as well and Flaviano Rubia, the assistant manager. On
August 22, 1968, at 2:30 in the afternoon, the defendant was taking a nap when he heard
sounds of construction and found fence being made. He addressed the group and asked them
to stop destroying his house and asking if they could talk things over. Fleischer responded with
"No, gadamit, proceed, go ahead." Defendant lost his "equilibrium," and shot Fleisher with his
shotgun. He also shot Rubia who was running towards the jeep where the deceased's gun was
placed. Prior to the shooting, Fleischer and Co. (the company of Fleischer's family) was involved
in a legal battle with the defendant and other land settlers of Cotabato over certain pieces of
property. At the time of the shooting, the civil case was still pending for annulment of the
granting of property to the Fleisher and Co. by the settlers where the defendant was one of
them. At time of the shooting, defendant had leased his property from Fleisher with a promise to
pay for the rentals (though case pending and ownership uncertain) to avoid trouble. On June 25,
defendant received letter terminating contract because he allegedly didn't pay rent. He was
given 6 months to remove his house from the land. Shooting was barely 2 months after letter.
Defendant claims he killed in defense of his person and property.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the Court of first Instance committed an error in convicting defendant-
appellant despite the fact that he acted in defense of his person.
2. Whether or not the court committed an error in convicting defendant-appellant although

he acted in defense of his rights.
3. Whether or not he should be liable for subsidiary imprisonment since he is unable to pay
the civil indemnity due to the offended party.
Ruling:
1. Whether or not the Court of first Instance committed an error in convicting defendant-
appellant despite the fact that he acted in defense of his person.
No. The courts concurred that the fencing and chiselling of the walls of the house of the
defendant was indeed a form of aggression on the part of the victim. However, this
aggression was not done on the person of the victim but rather on his rights to property. On the
first issue, the courts did not err. However, in consideration of the violation of property rights, the
courts referred to Art. 30 of the civil code recognizing the right of owners to close and fence their
land.
Although is not in dispute, the victim was not in the position to subscribe to the article because
his ownership of the land being awarded by the government was still pending, therefore putting
ownership into question. It is accepted that the victim was the original aggressor.
2. Whether or not the court committed an error in convicting defendant-appellant
although he acted in defense of his rights.
Yes. However, the argument of the justifying circumstance of self-defense is applicable only if
the 3 requirements are fulfilled. Art. 11(1) RPC enumerates these requisites:
1. Unlawful aggression. In the case at bar, there was unlawful aggression towards
appellant's property rights. Fleisher had given Narvaez 6 months and he should have left
him in peace before time was up, instead of chiseling Narvaez's house and putting up
fence. Art. 536 of the Civil Code also provides that possession may not be acquired
through force or intimidation; while Art. 539 provides that every possessor has the right
to be respected in his possession
2. Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel attack. In the case, killing
was disproportionate to the attack.
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on part of person defending himself. Here, there was no
provocation at all since he was asleep
4. Since not all requisites present, defendant is credited with the special mitigating
circumstance of incomplete defense, pursuant to Art. 13(6) RPC. These mitigating
circumstances are: voluntary surrender and passion and obfuscation (read p. 405
explanation) Crime is homicide (2 counts) not murder because treachery is not
applicable on account of provocation by the deceased. Also, assault was not deliberately
chosen with view to kill since slayer acted instantaneously. There was also no direct
evidence of planning or preparation to kill. Art. 249 RPC: Penalty for homicide is
reclusion temporal. However, due to mitigating circumstances and incomplete defense, it
can be lowered three degrees (Art. 64) to arrestomayor.
3. Whether or not he should be liable for subsidiary imprisonment since he is unable to

pay the civil indemnity due to the offended party.
No. He is not liable to be subsidiarily imprisoned for nonpayment of civil indemnity. RA 5465
made the provisions of Art. 39 applicable to fines only and not to reparation of damage caused,
indemnification of consequential damages and costs of proceedings. Although it was enacted
only after its conviction, considering that RA 5465 is favorable to the accused who is not a
habitual delinquent, it may be given retroactive effect pursuant to Art. 22 of the RPC.
Judgment: Defendant guilty of homicide but w/ mitigating circumstances and extenuating

circumstance of incomplete self defense. Penalty is 4 months arresto mayor and to indemnify
each group of heirs 4,000 w/o subsidiary imprisonment and w/o award for moral damages.
Appellant has already been detained 14 years so his immediate release is ordered.
Gutierrez, dissenting. Defense of property can only be invoked when coupled with form of attack
on person defending property. In the case at bar, this was not so. Appellant should then be
sentenced to prision mayor. However, since he has served more than that, he should be
released.
Doctrine
: Justifying Circumstances - Unlawful Aggression against property rights: Defense of
propertycan be invoked as a justifying circumstance only when it is coupled with an attack on
the personof one entrusted with said property.

*It must be noted that there can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the
victimhad committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense.

*Also, the party should have been the subject of a real and imminent threat, which represents
theunlawful aggression made upon him. There must also be reasonableness in his use of a
knife orany other weapon as his means to defend himself. And finally, there should be no
provocation onhis part that caused his aggressor to harm him

Digest With Num 3 IssueTopic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest With Num 3 IssueTopic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest With Num 3 IssueTopic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Topic: Art 11: Defense of Property

Title: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

2. Whether or not the court committed an error in convicting defendant-appellant although

3. Whether or not he should be liable for subsidiary imprisonment since he is unable to

Judgment: Defendant guilty of homicide but w/ mitigating circumstances and extenuating

You might also like